The decision involves a request by Huawei Technologies for a discretionary review of a previous ruling by the Munich Local Division in a document access dispute. The dispute centers around Quinn Emanuel's request to access certain filings in a concluded infringement proceeding between Huawei and MediaTek. The initial decision granted the request, allowing redacted access to protect confidential information. Huawei sought review, arguing procedural and substantive errors, including inadequately balanced interests and misapplication of legal principles by the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the legal complexities and allowed Huawei's request for discretionary review, signaling that the request raised fundamental legal issues needing clarification.
UPC Publication Date:05/13/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Winning Party:Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 4 142 215
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Procedural errorsImbalance of interestsMisapplication of legal principles
This case involves a request for discretionary review by Huawei Technologies after a decision by the Munich local division in favor of Quinn Emanuel's request for document inspection, related to a concluded infringement proceeding, was upheld. Huawei contested this through legal channels, arguing the decision contained clear errors, including improper consideration of party interests and the mischaracterization of the application as exploratory. They also pointed to inconsistency in judicial interpretation regarding whether such decisions are reviewable. The appellate court recognized the broader legal implications, allowing the discretionary review, but did not permit an immediate appeal to proceed.
UPC Publication Date:05/13/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Winning Party:Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 905 840
Patent Title:Unspecific
Grounds for decision:Inconsistency in judicial interpretationImproper consideration of interestsPotential exploratory nature of application
Align Technology, Inc., a US-based company specializing in clear aligner orthodontic products, sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against various European subsidiaries of Angelalign Technology. Align accused these subsidiaries of infringing on its European Patent No. EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to the design and use of orthodontic appliances for moving teeth. The patent was registered with unitary effect and has not faced opposition thus far. Align is known for its 'Invisalign G6' technology, while Angelalign markets similar products like the 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution'. The court's decision addressed provisional measures and the burden of proof in the context of potential patent infringement.
UPC Publication Date:05/12/2026
Summarized:05/12/2026
Type:Application for provisional measures
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Align Technology, Inc. v. Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Winning Party:Align Technology, Inc.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 4 295 806 B1
Patent Title:A METHOD OF DESIGNING AN ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE FOR MOVING ONE OR MORE TEETH OF A PLURALITY OF TEETH, AND SYSTEM TO GENERATE A PLURALITY OF SUCH APPLIANCES
Grounds for decision:Application for Provisional MeasuresBurden of Proof
In a complex legal matter involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril Life Sciences, along with other associated entities, the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision primarily addressing applications for withdrawal and confidentiality related to cost decisions. Various proceedings were connected to the patent EP 3 769 722 B1, initially involving infringement and counterclaims for revocation.
UPC Publication Date:05/12/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division
Parties:EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v. 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v. 2. MERIL GMBH v. 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ v. 4. SORMEDICA, UAB v. 5. INTERLUX, UAB v. 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 769 722 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Joint request for withdrawalConfidentiality agreement between parties
The Unified Patent Court's Nordic-Baltic Regional Division decided on requests for cost decision withdrawals and confidentiality in related cases CFI_775/2025, CFI_776/2025, and CFI_777/2025. Following a previous decision on the merits involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. mutually agreed to withdraw their applications for cost decisions after reaching a settlement. They maintained confidentiality requests, which the court granted, restricting access to specific information and prohibiting its use outside the proceedings. The decision does not affect potential future requests related to the case.
UPC Publication Date:05/12/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division
Parties:1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v. 2. MERIL GMBH v. 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ v. 4. SORMEDICA, UAB v. 5. INTERLUX, UAB v. 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 769 722 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Joint agreement for withdrawalConfidentiality under Art. 58 UPCAProtection of confidential information as justified by parties' requests
This decision relates to cost proceedings following a patent infringement case involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as the claimant and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited and others as defendants. The parties submitted requests for cost decisions and confidentiality protections for certain documents.
UPC Publication Date:05/12/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division
Parties:1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v. 2. MERIL GMBH v. 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ v. 4. SORMEDICA, UAB v. 5. INTERLUX, UAB v. 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 769 722 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Mutual agreement to withdraw cost applications and settle the caseProtection of confidential information under Art. 58 UPCA
In a decision dated May 11, 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request for confidentiality in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent No. 3 909 047. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., the claimant, sought to protect a 'TechInsights report' as confidential, which is central to their infringement claim against Micron Technology, Inc. and affiliates. The report, prepared by TechInsights, contains sensitive information and is already used in related US proceedings. The claimant argued for confidentiality citing US export restrictions and contractual obligations. The defendants opposed this, arguing the report was publicly available and questioning the existence of any obligations. The court found the claimant's application for confidentiality justified under Art. 58 UPCA, emphasizing the need to protect sensitive information and balancing this against fair trial rights.
UPC Publication Date:05/11/2026
Summarized:05/12/2026
Type:Application RoP262A
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated an infringement action against Xingi Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd., collectively known as the Xingi Group. The case involves the alleged infringement of European patent n° 2 791 402, related to ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. Avient argued that Xingi Group's products, 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels', infringe claims 2-4, 8-10, and 12-15 of the patent respectively. Xingi Group responded with a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, citing invalidity. Avient further filed an application for evidence concerning the alleged infringement and requested the court to order the Xingi Group to produce relevant evidence. The decision emphasized the need for Xingi Group to provide ballistic performance data and samples for testing to resolve issues regarding claims 13-15.
UPC Publication Date:05/11/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Avient Protective Materials B.V. v. Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
In an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 19 March 2026, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) is the claimant against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several others, collectively referred to as the 'Transsion defendants.' This preliminary order arises from a case management hearing (CMH) held on 5 March 2026, addressing procedural aspects, particularly a confidentiality regime pending further negotiations. Ericsson seeks a FRAND declaration only in the UPC proceedings, while there are parallel actions in various jurisdictions against Transsion. At this stage, no counterclaim has been filed by the Transsion defendants, whose representation is currently not finalized regarding a FRAND defense. The proceedings will continue as outlined in the court's Rules of Procedure, with emphasis on resolving confidentiality issues by 10 April 2026.
UPC Publication Date:05/08/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, EP 3 245 744 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Infringement actionConfidentiality agreement proceedings
This case is an infringement action brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd and other defendants. On 19 March 2026, the Unified Patent Court held a case management hearing where several procedural issues were discussed. Ericsson has accused Transsion and others of infringing on their patents, and similar actions are ongoing in other jurisdictions. The court emphasized the organization of a confidentiality regime as Ericsson’s sensitive information is involved. The possibility of a FRAND defense or a counterclaim from Transsion remains undecided as they are handling multiple worldwide proceedings. The court ordered the case to proceed according to procedural rules and suggested parties agree on a confidentiality regime, with a deadline for Transsion's response by 10 April 2026.
UPC Publication Date:05/08/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, EP 3 245 744 B1
The case involves Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filing an infringement action against several defendants, collectively referred to as 'Transsion defendants', regarding several patents. A case management hearing took place on March 5, 2026, where the logistics of multiple simultaneous proceedings were discussed, highlighting the defendants' challenges in coordinating worldwide legal actions. Ericsson is seeking a FRAND declaration in the UPC proceedings. Both parties have yet to reach an agreement on a confidentiality regime, and the court invites submissions on the issue before April 10, 2026. No counterclaim has been filed yet, and the Transsion defendants are uncertain about raising a FRAND defense.
UPC Publication Date:05/08/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, EP 3 245 744 B1
In this appellate decision, Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited (Appellants) sought a discretionary review of a first-instance decision involving a patent infringement claim brought by KEEEX SAS (Respondent). The patent in question, EP 2 949 070, was alleged to be infringed, and Adobe argued that the lower court erred in not allowing them to appeal the decision that rejected their preliminary objections, primarily related to jurisdiction over non-contracting states to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement. The request for a discretionary review was denied as the key jurisdictional question was already settled by the Court of Appeal, establishing that UPC does not have jurisdiction over alleged infringements in non-member states. The Appellants' interest in clarification was deemed insufficient for granting an appeal, as the legal clarification had already been provided.
UPC Publication Date:05/08/2026
Summarized:05/08/2026
Type:Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v. KEEEX SAS
Winning Party:KEEEX SAS
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 949 070
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent CourtDiscretionary review criteria
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) filed a legal action against multiple companies under the Moderna umbrella, concerning patent EP2590626 B1. The court issued a procedural order addressing two main applications. Firstly, GSK's request to have experts heard in person (under R. 176) was dismissed because they failed to specify the facts the experts would confirm, and such detailed hearings don't align with UPC's framework. Secondly, Moderna's request for an extension to file a rejoinder (under R. 9.3) was denied due to lack of exceptional circumstances, despite the complexity of the issues. This is in line with UPC's goal of timely resolving cases. The court also invited parties to suggest additional topics for an upcoming Interim Conference.
UPC Publication Date:05/07/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Winning Party:Moderna et al.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP2590626 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Failure to specify facts for witness confirmationLack of exceptional circumstances for deadline extension
The Unified Patent Court's Düsseldorf local division ruled on a case concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1 filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. The patent relates to a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. Ottobock alleged patent infringement on grounds that the defendants were marketing a knee system ('Kneuro microprocessor') that infringed on their patent in Germany and other parts of Europe. The court addressed whether the plaintiff fulfilled the burden of proving awareness of the infringing product and its patent-violating characteristics in a timely fashion. No counterclaim was filed by the defendants.
UPC Publication Date:05/07/2026
Summarized:05/07/2026
Type:Application for provisional measures
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v. BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
Winning Party:Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 001 984 B1
Patent Title:Method for controlling an orthopedic joint
Grounds for decision:Patent infringementBurden of proof regarding knowledge of infringement
The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding the request for provisional measures filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV. The request was based on the alleged infringement of Ottobock's European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, which covers a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. The application sought to enforce provisional measures against the distribution of the contested product, a knee system branded as "Knreuro microprocessor" model BR4B/BR4C. The court examined the urgency and necessity of the provisional measures, focusing on the claimant's awareness of the potential infringement and the promptness of their actions. The court found Ottobock justified in seeking provisional measures. The case emphasized the claimant's responsibility to promptly clarify potential infringements.
UPC Publication Date:05/07/2026
Summarized:05/07/2026
Type:Application for provisional measures
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v. Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
Winning Party:Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 001 984 B1
Patent Title:Method for controlling an orthopedic joint
Grounds for decision:Patent InfringementUrgencyPromptness of Action
The Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) as the claimant and several Moderna entities as the defendants. GSK filed an application requesting that experts be heard in person, arguing it would enhance the evidence from their written statements. The court dismissed this application, aligning with Moderna's view that the procedural rules do not mandate an in-person hearing of all experts.
UPC Publication Date:05/07/2026
Summarized:05/14/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Winning Party:Moderna
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP2590626 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:UPC procedural rulesInsufficient justification for in-person expert hearingLack of exceptional circumstances for extension request
The UPC court issued a decision on the request by YEALINK for a cost award following preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings involving patent EP 3 732 827, owned by BARCO NV. YEALINK claimed to be the 'successful party,' arguing for reimbursement of over €237,000 in legal and additional costs across first instance and appeal proceedings. BARCO countered, acknowledging some cost liability but disputing the total claimed amount and YEALINK's full success. The court ruled that YEALINK was entitled to partial cost reimbursement and ordered BARCO to pay €112,000, while rejecting additional costs deemed unrecoverable.
UPC Publication Date:05/07/2026
Summarized:05/08/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Brussels (BE) Local Division
Parties:YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. v. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v. BARCO NV v.
Winning Party:Partially YEALINK
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 732 827
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:YEALINK as partially successful partyNon-recoverable costs under RoP
On May 6, 2026, the Local Division of Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The patent, held by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, involves a method and apparatus for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant requested an inspection of the respondent's machine, the ANCA EPX-SF, exhibited at the GrindingHub in Stuttgart, to secure evidence of suspected patent infringement. OTEC claims that the EPX-SF uses technology possibly infringing their patent, which involves rotating a workpiece with varying speeds relative to abrasive material. The respondent, ANCA Europe GmbH, denies any infringement. The order allows for an inspection at the trade fair, with detailed procedures outlined for the examination of the EPX-SF machine to potentially prove infringement.
UPC Publication Date:05/06/2026
Summarized:05/12/2026
Type:Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v. ANCA Europe GmbH
Winning Party:OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 983 864 B1
Patent Title:Method and Apparatus for Surface Treatment of Workpieces
Grounds for decision:Article 60 EPGÜRules 194(d), 196, 197, 199 of the Rules of Procedure
This case at the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Ericsson claimed that AsusTek infringed the patent by selling laptops containing specific Intel Wi-Fi modules. Ericsson sought damages and an order requiring AsusTek to provide detailed sales information. AsusTek countered by seeking revocation of the patent, arguing it contained added matter, lacked novelty, and inventive step. Proceedings included a decision on costs contingent on the outcome, a dismissed injunction request, and detailed procedural submissions. During oral proceedings, Ericsson withdrew their rectification claim. Ultimately, the court found in favor of AsusTek, revoking the patent and dismissing the infringement claim.
UPC Publication Date:05/06/2026
Summarized:05/08/2026
Type:Counterclaim for revocation
Court:Lisbon (PT) Local Division
Parties:Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Winning Party:AsusTek Computer Inc.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 819 131 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Added MatterLack of NoveltyLack of Inventive Step
In this case, Ericsson alleged that AsusTek had infringed its European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1 by selling products containing certain infringing modules. Ericsson sought declarations of patent infringement, liability for damages, and orders for damages and detailed accounting by AsusTek. AsusTek counterclaimed for the revocation of the patent, arguing it was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step.
UPC Publication Date:05/06/2026
Summarized:05/08/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Lisbon (PT) Local Division
Parties:Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 819 131
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Legal InterestAdded MatterNoveltyInventive StepActs of Infringement